Romney 2012?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You’re wasting your breath. To people who love Sarah Palin and think she’s the female Reagan, policy, or even the minimal appearance of competence, are completely irrelevant. It’s identity politics, as plain as black people voting for Obama. One of the worst features of democracy.

To people who hate Sarah Palin - it is identity politics, only in reverse.

You and jsbrook are the poster boys for hating Palin because she is Palin. Either that or you were told to by Katy Couric.
[/quote]

I don’t “hate” Palin at all. I don’t hate anyone in US politics. I’m a Christian from a small state, she appealed to me initially, as I said on here at the time. But I think she’s completely unprepared, and probably always will be, for the White House. How anyone could come to any other conclusion after watching her debating and being interviewed is completely beyond me.

[quote]
But you have been anti-conservative since the war started. Single issue voters are pretty much fucking idiots. [/quote]

There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.[/quote]

I don’t read the National Review.

You have been vehemently against Iraq since the beginning. That is hardly the same thing as thinking it is a bad idea.

Pat Buchanan does not count. He has never counted.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
You’re wasting your breath. To people who love Sarah Palin and think she’s the female Reagan, policy, or even the minimal appearance of competence, are completely irrelevant. It’s identity politics, as plain as black people voting for Obama. One of the worst features of democracy.

To people who hate Sarah Palin - it is identity politics, only in reverse.

You and jsbrook are the poster boys for hating Palin because she is Palin. Either that or you were told to by Katy Couric.

I don’t “hate” Palin at all. I don’t hate anyone in US politics. I’m a Christian from a small state, she appealed to me initially, as I said on here at the time. But I think she’s completely unprepared, and probably always will be, for the White House. How anyone could come to any other conclusion after watching her debating and being interviewed is completely beyond me.

But you have been anti-conservative since the war started. Single issue voters are pretty much fucking idiots.

There are plenty of conservatives who think Iraq was a bad idea. Too many to list. Read beyond National Review and the Wall Street Journal.[/quote]

Palin was a one game special teams play.

I doubt she will go much further on the national stage, but wouldn’t swear to it.

BTW, I don’t read opinion magazines or watch TV for my views on Iraq or anything else. History, applied to today,s world has taught me that waiting for a threat to turn imminent before acting is a naive recipe for disaster.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

No love for mike huckabee?

If it’s because you think he isn’t a big enough name, he put the spot light on himself by staying in the primary race against all odds.
[/quote]

It’s because he’s a lousy bass player.

I am hoping for someone new from the right that honestly understands the 1, 2, 4, and 9 amendement. essentially, a newt clone. Unfortunately newt is totally unelectable due to the very successful character assassination job done by the clintons. But i believe it is possible to elect someone like him, because I believe the pendulum will swing very hard and far after obama.

You missed my point about intellectual abilities completely. It’s not about schools or grades. Go back and read what I wrote in that regard.

BTW, I do not agree with 99.9999% of Obama’s politics, but from an intellectual perspective, to claim that he “couldn’t keep up with this forum . . . ??” You’ve got to be joking.

Disagree with him all you want (and I do). The guy is one SMART motherfucker. He can think and understand circles around the likes of Bush or Palin, and everybody knows it. Know thy enemy, Zap.

What he DOES with that understanding is another matter, but the point is that the Republicans need to start nominating people of that intellectual caliber (i.e. the best and the brightest, since it is the office of PRESIDENT), and NOT pandering to the lowest common denominator who are “turned off by people with too much smarts.”

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Her qualifications for office exceed his, her ideology is more in line with what has made this country great.

“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade – we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.” - Sarah Palin

“If course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first” - Sarah Palin

Yes, an amazing intellect. Her brain is so quick, her mouth has trouble keeping up.

I am not really sure what your point is. We just elected a pair of morons to be president and vp. Neither one of those could even keep up with this forum.

Why expect more from the Republicans? Why do people pretend they are not as bright? “Stupid” George Bush did better in school than his opponents and his IQ was the same yet people pretend he was dumber.

This is a phony issue.[/quote]

[quote]Damici wrote:
You missed my point about intellectual abilities completely. It’s not about schools or grades. Go back and read what I wrote in that regard.

BTW, I do not agree with 99.9999% of Obama’s politics, but from an intellectual perspective, to claim that he “couldn’t keep up with this forum . . . ??” You’ve got to be joking.

Disagree with him all you want (and I do). The guy is one SMART motherfucker. He can think and understand circles around the likes of Bush or Palin, and everybody knows it. Know thy enemy, Zap.

What he DOES with that understanding is another matter, but the point is that the Republicans need to start nominating people of that intellectual caliber (i.e. the best and the brightest, since it is the office of PRESIDENT), and NOT pandering to the lowest common denominator who are “turned off by people with too much smarts.”

Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Her qualifications for office exceed his, her ideology is more in line with what has made this country great.

“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade – we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.” - Sarah Palin

“If course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first” - Sarah Palin

Yes, an amazing intellect. Her brain is so quick, her mouth has trouble keeping up.

I am not really sure what your point is. We just elected a pair of morons to be president and vp. Neither one of those could even keep up with this forum.

Why expect more from the Republicans? Why do people pretend they are not as bright? “Stupid” George Bush did better in school than his opponents and his IQ was the same yet people pretend he was dumber.

This is a phony issue.

[/quote]

You must be kidding. Reading another mans pretty words from a teleprompter is not a sign of intelligence. The debates with Hillary and McCain showed us he is not very quick witted or well spoken when not reading from a script. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. All he knows is how to appeal to the masses to obtain power.

The mainstream media hid his many gaffes from us.

I suppose you can define him as an intellectual in the worst sense of the word but that does not make him brighter than the average dim bulb politician.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not really sure what your point is. [/quote]

My point is that if we support morons for office, that’s what we’re going to get.

It’s very fucking sad that if someone needs a doctor for their kids, they’ll try to find the best one (a smart, “elite” doctor - the best in his field will do just fine.); or if you need a mechanic for your car, you also want one who knows what the Hell he’s talking about and not just throwing mechanical terms around while he blindly changes parts until he stumbles on the right one. In most areas of life, we much prefer to deal with smart, competent people.

But to run the country? God forbid that someone smarter than the average Joe should end up in office. It’s not like there are any complex issues to deal with, or any repercussions down the line when massive blunders are made. No, the big litmus test for eligibility is “Would I like to have a beer with that guy/girl?”

Now, I don’t know how well Obama will fare as a president, but one thing’s for sure, he’s never spouted incoherent crap like Palin does. He might not be right about many issues, but he still can argue his side and do more than repeat coached arguments and catchy slogans.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am not really sure what your point is.

My point is that if we support morons for office, that’s what we’re going to get.

It’s very fucking sad that if someone needs a doctor for their kids, they’ll try to find the best one (a smart, “elite” doctor - the best in his field will do just fine.); or if you need a mechanic for your car, you also want one who knows what the Hell he’s talking about and not just throwing mechanical terms around while he blindly changes parts until he stumbles on the right one. In most areas of life, we much prefer to deal with smart, competent people.

But to run the country? God forbid that someone smarter than the average Joe should end up in office. It’s not like there are any complex issues to deal with, or any repercussions down the line when massive blunders are made. No, the big litmus test for eligibility is “Would I like to have a beer with that guy/girl?”

Now, I don’t know how well Obama will fare as a president, but one thing’s for sure, he’s never spouted incoherent crap like Palin does. He might not be right about many issues, but he still can argue his side and do more than repeat coached arguments and catchy slogans.

[/quote]

Obama hasn’t spouted incoherent crap? Are you serious? Does anyone pay attention anymore?

Did you see O’Reilly put him on the spot? Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Obama hasn’t spouted incoherent crap? Are you serious? Does anyone pay attention anymore?

Did you see O’Reilly put him on the spot? Obama is as big a moron as the rest of them.[/quote]

I saw the O’Reilly interview. Didn’t see anything incoherent. Feel free to look up a transcript and point it out to me.

If you don’t understand the words, it doesn’t make him incoherent.

This is where Republicans need to focus
http://www.republicanlibertycaucus.org/?p=FAQ#4252

Ten reasons to join.
http://www.rlc.org/2008/07/24/why-join-the-rlc/

Zap, you can’t be serious. Honestly. Try to separate what he’s arguing (because you and I both disagree with his political positions) with how he’s able to argue and articulate it. He is masterfully good at the latter. Almost as good as Bill Clinton (at the latter).

His “misunderstanding of economics” is something that I agree with you on – you and I agree on conservative, supply-side fiscal policy being the way to go. But whether we like it or not there is another (or many other) school of thought, and about half the economists (and politicians, and people) agree with one side and half agree with the other. He’s on the other side from us. Correct.

BUT, you CANNOT tell me that he wasn’t able to articulate his side a thousand times better than most people can articulate their thoughts on the subject, or a million times better than McCain and Palin could articulate theirs.

FUCK, man, there’s a shining illustration right there!! The Republicans (McCain) have the most EASY TO ARGUE position on any topic there is – fiscal conservatism and why higher taxes are harmful to the economy – and McCain FLUBBED it Every. Fucking. Time when it was served up to him on a SILVER PLATTER by interviewers!! He handled it SO BADLY I wanted to throw things through the plasma screen!

If you’ve got a candidate who is THAT bad at articulating his position – the position that’s EASY AS PIE to make the argument for to the American people – who just can’t do it (probably in large part because he himself doesn’t have a deep understanding of it) then he’s gonna’ get WHOOPED by a smarter, more articulate, more intelligent, capable guy who is arguing the other side.

If you think Barack Obama doesn’t speak intelligently or impressively in one-on-one interviews, “without a teleprompter,” then I honestly have nothing left to say. You’re obviously seeing what you want to see.

The Republicans need to STOP – NOMINATING – MORONS.

That’s the least I ask.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Damici wrote:
You missed my point about intellectual abilities completely. It’s not about schools or grades. Go back and read what I wrote in that regard.

BTW, I do not agree with 99.9999% of Obama’s politics, but from an intellectual perspective, to claim that he “couldn’t keep up with this forum . . . ??” You’ve got to be joking.

Disagree with him all you want (and I do). The guy is one SMART motherfucker. He can think and understand circles around the likes of Bush or Palin, and everybody knows it. Know thy enemy, Zap.

What he DOES with that understanding is another matter, but the point is that the Republicans need to start nominating people of that intellectual caliber (i.e. the best and the brightest, since it is the office of PRESIDENT), and NOT pandering to the lowest common denominator who are “turned off by people with too much smarts.”

Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Her qualifications for office exceed his, her ideology is more in line with what has made this country great.

“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it’s got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade – we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.” - Sarah Palin

“If course, it’s a fungible commodity and they don’t flag, you know, the molecules, where it’s going and where it’s not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first” - Sarah Palin

Yes, an amazing intellect. Her brain is so quick, her mouth has trouble keeping up.

I am not really sure what your point is. We just elected a pair of morons to be president and vp. Neither one of those could even keep up with this forum.

Why expect more from the Republicans? Why do people pretend they are not as bright? “Stupid” George Bush did better in school than his opponents and his IQ was the same yet people pretend he was dumber.

This is a phony issue.

You must be kidding. Reading another mans pretty words from a teleprompter is not a sign of intelligence. The debates with Hillary and McCain showed us he is not very quick witted or well spoken when not reading from a script. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. All he knows is how to appeal to the masses to obtain power.

The mainstream media hid his many gaffes from us.

I suppose you can define him as an intellectual in the worst sense of the word but that does not make him brighter than the average dim bulb politician.
[/quote]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Yes, I am elite. I am smarter, more well informed and wiser than the overwhelming majority of people. I am also more physically fit and better looking.

[/quote]

…doggone it, people like me.

Good post, Damici.

McCain was basically Bob Dole II. Bob Dole I failed the normalcy and common sense tests on numerous occasions.

Sorry guys, you are confusing charisma and polish with intelligence.

Palin made the fatal mistake early of trying to answer bad questions, she turned it around in the debate but she has a habit of talking too much. Obama doesn’t even bother. He just spouts his prepared talking points.

[quote]Damici wrote:

FUCK, man, there’s a shining illustration right there!! The Republicans (McCain) have the most EASY TO ARGUE position on any topic there is – fiscal conservatism and why higher taxes are harmful to the economy – and McCain FLUBBED it Every. Fucking. Time when it was served up to him on a SILVER PLATTER by interviewers!! He handled it SO BADLY I wanted to throw things through the plasma screen!

[/quote]

McCain is not a conservative, that is why he didn’t argue the position well. He doesn’t believe it.

Zap, with all due respect, you’re being ridiculous!

She was asked point blank if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. A fucking 12-year-old these days could tell you what the Bush Doctrine is!! (Pre-emptive war, in short).

She DIDN’T KNOW WHAT IT WAS!!! HellOOOOOOO!!! And she should be PRESIDENT???

Did you HEAR her answer to Katie Couric’s question about the economy, rambling and flubbing on about healthcare, and taxes, and the “trade sector??” She illustrated that she hasn’t a CLUE what she was talking about!

Twisted questions?? You’re going to sit there and blame the questioners for her talking herself into a hole on numerous occasions?? Zap, I’m no genius, but I, I could’ve answered those questions vastly better then she could.

You can NOT, as an intelligent adult, sit there and blame the questioner for the fact that Sarah Palin cannot articulate JACK SHIT.

Because she’s NOT SMART.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sorry guys, you are confusing charisma and polish with intelligence.

Palin made the fatal mistake early of trying to answer bad questions, she turned it around in the debate but she has a habit of talking too much. Obama doesn’t even bother. He just spouts his prepared talking points.

[/quote]

[quote]Damici wrote:
The Republicans need to STOP – NOMINATING – MORONS.
[/quote]

Let’s see - since 1972 - which would be the last 10 presidential elections - the republicans have nominated 2 losers. I am not counting GHWB, as he was the incumbant in 1992, or Ford in 1976.

Now - arguably Ford was a moron, but he was also the sitting President.

But throwing out 1992 and 1976 - that is a 6-2 record.

There was no way anyone was going to beat Clinton in 1996 - no matter who we elected.

McCain is the only “moron” we have nominated in the last 36 years.

Assuming you equate losing with being a moron.

Even if Bush and Reagan were blithering idiots - they were not as moronic as their opponents.

New baby jesus is only the 3rd democratic president since the great murderer, LBJ.

Your rhetoric is misplaced, and really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

My “rhetoric” is perfectly placed for this: the PRESENT DAY.

Reagan was the polar opposite of a moron, though many on the left tried to accuse him of being that, but if you listen to his speeches even today it is evident that he was a brilliant guy, agree or disagree with him. If the Republicans today had someone who could articulate and argue (and UNDERSTAND) they way he did, they’d do just fine.

As for recent morons nominated (or gotten into office) by the Repubs:

– VP Dan Quayle (who, as I mentioned earlier, then had NO shot at being nominated for President after that because he was a moron).

– Bob Dole – couldn’t articulate his way out of a cardboard box.

– W. – nothing further needs to be said about the Quintessential Moron.

– Sarah Palin – Give me a while to find some YouTube clips of her. Unbelievable that she was nominated to be VP. Just breathtaking. McCain got what he deserved because of it.

– I wouldn’t call John McCain a moron at all, but he was no intellectual or communicative standout either, as I illustrated earlier. The Republicans need to do a LOT better than that. And, as I mentioned, he lost.

See, this is not about scorecards from 35 years ago. This is about the here and now. What - don’t - you - understand - regarding what just happened??

The country is rapidly changing. This ain’t the Reagan era, like it or not.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Damici wrote:
The Republicans need to STOP – NOMINATING – MORONS.

Let’s see - since 1972 - which would be the last 10 presidential elections - the republicans have nominated 2 losers. I am not counting GHWB, as he was the incumbant in 1992, or Ford in 1976.

Now - arguably Ford was a moron, but he was also the sitting President.

But throwing out 1992 and 1976 - that is a 6-2 record.

There was no way anyone was going to beat Clinton in 1996 - no matter who we elected.

McCain is the only “moron” we have nominated in the last 36 years.

Assuming you equate losing with being a moron.

Even if Bush and Reagan were blithering idiots - they were not as moronic as their opponents.

New baby jesus is only the 3rd democratic president since the great murderer, LBJ.

Your rhetoric is misplaced, and really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. [/quote]

Bush Doctrine my ass. Those questions had no answers. There is no “Bush Doctrine” claiming it is pre-emptive war isas silly as claiming it is giving 40 billion dollars to Africa. It was a terrible question, she should have asked the bitch to clarify but instead her nerves got the best of her. Palin is not dumb but she was very flustered.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Zap, with all due respect, you’re being ridiculous!

She was asked point blank if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. A fucking 12-year-old these days could tell you what the Bush Doctrine is!! (Pre-emptive war, in short).

She DIDN’T KNOW WHAT IT WAS!!! HellOOOOOOO!!! And she should be PRESIDENT???

Did you HEAR her answer to Katie Couric’s question about the economy, rambling and flubbing on about healthcare, and taxes, and the “trade sector??” She illustrated that she hasn’t a CLUE what she was talking about!

Twisted questions?? You’re going to sit there and blame the questioners for her talking herself into a hole on numerous occasions?? Zap, I’m no genius, but I, I could’ve answered those questions vastly better then she could.

You can NOT, as an intelligent adult, sit there and blame the questioner for the fact that Sarah Palin cannot articulate JACK SHIT.

Because she’s NOT SMART.

Zap Branigan wrote:
Sorry guys, you are confusing charisma and polish with intelligence.

Palin made the fatal mistake early of trying to answer bad questions, she turned it around in the debate but she has a habit of talking too much. Obama doesn’t even bother. He just spouts his prepared talking points.

[/quote]